Bowers & Wilkins 802 D3 Diamond loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Bowers & Wilkins 802 D3 Diamond's frequency response in the farfield; I used an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield frequency responses. (For logistical reasons, I measured a different sample from those auditioned by KR.) As with the Marten Coltrane 3, reviewed elsewhere in this issue, the 802 D3 was too bulky to be lifted off the ground. The earlier-than-usual reflections of the drive-units' output from the ground thus compromised the measurements' resolution in the midrange. The loudspeaker was also too heavy for me to lift it onto my Outline computer-controlled turntable, so I had to examine its off-axis behavior by manually rotating the loudspeaker on its casters and checking the angle with a protractor, a time-consuming procedure.

B&W specifies the 802 D3's sensitivity on the tweeter axis as a high 90dB/2.83V/m. My estimate was a little higher, at 91dB(B)/2.83V/m. This speaker will play loud for very little input voltage! However, it is a relatively demanding load for an amplifier to drive. Fig.1 shows the B&W's electrical impedance (solid trace) and phase (dotted trace). The magnitude drops to 3 ohms between 100 and 130Hz, and again between 670 and 770Hz; and while the electrical phase angle is low in the lower region, it becomes increasingly inductive above 600Hz, reaching +46° at 1kHz, where the magnitude is 4 ohms. There is also a combination of 4 ohms and 64° at 69Hz, implying that this speaker does require an amplifier that is not upset by a low effective impedance.

My accelerometer was out of action when I had the B&W speaker in-house for measurement. However, listening to the woofer enclosure with a stethoscope while I drove the 802 D3 with a sinewave generator revealed the presence of low-level modes at 380 and 415Hz.

The saddle centered on 20Hz in the impedance-magnitude trace suggests that this is the tuning frequency of the large, flared port that fires downward from the woofer enclosure. This was confirmed by the fact that the summed output of the two woofers (fig.2, blue trace) has the expected minimum-motion notch at this frequency. (The two woofers offered identical measured responses.) The port's output (red trace) peaks between 10 and 40Hz, but has a significant peak at 248Hz in its upper-frequency output. Though this resonance does result in a small discontinuity in the woofers' nearfield response, the fact that the port faces the floor should minimize its audible consequences.

The woofers are crossed over to the midrange unit (fig.2, green trace) at around 500Hz, with steep filter slopes. The tweeter's output in this graph appears to be balanced a little too high in level, which persisted when I averaged the farfield response across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis (fig.3). The 802 D3's midrange and bass output is smooth and even, and the slight boost in the mid- and upper bass is entirely an artifact of the nearfield measurement technique. As KR found, the 802 D3's low-frequency alignment is free from underdamped boom.

The plot of the B&W's lateral dispersion (fig.4) reveals that the tweeter becomes more directional than is usual in the top octaves, which in a typical room will work against the excess on-axis energy in the same region. But the output of the large-diameter midrange unit does drop off at the top of its passband more than 45° to the speaker's sides, which might make it sound a little polite. At more moderate off-axis angles, the contour lines in this graph are smooth and evenly spaced, which always correlates with precise, stable stereo imaging.

Fig.4 B&W 802 D3 Diamond, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 905° off axis, reference response, differences in response 590° off axis.

In the vertical plane (fig.5), a suckout in the upper crossover region develops immediately above the tweeter axis. Below that axis, which is a high 46.5" from the floor, the mid-treble region becomes a little boosted compared with the region below.

Turning to the time domain, the 802 D3's step response on the tweeter axis (fig.6) indicates that all four drive-units are connected with positive acoustic polarity, and that, in general, the decay of each unit's step blends smoothly with the start of that of the next unit lower in frequency. However, the output of the tweeter is very slightly too forward in time, which suggests that the B&W's optimal listening axis will be a little below the tweeter axis. The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.7) reveals a generally clean initial decay.

Wow, those anechoic measurements sure would imply that these speakers are bass shy. I know that in-room measurements can be significantly different and that designers tailor the frequency response with room gain in mind, but I also notice a conspicuous absence of an in-room frequency response curve.

I know sound takes precedence over looks but these are some butt ugly looking pricey speakers. They look like some super high end trashcans. Bowers + Wilkins needs to find some new industrial designers.

(in reference to the 802s, not the Vivid Giyas) I agree. To my eyes they are some of the ugliest speakers I can remember—and not just from a manufacturer who has always, as far as I can see, traded on appearances as opposed to genuine content—but from any manufacturer. Truly appalling. Most B&W speakers I have heard sound fairly bad, too—yes, even the fabled 801s. They just looked the business. These don't.

Revel F208 has almost the same sized set of drivers and a little smaller cabinet (depth wise). How would you compare and contrast 802 D3 to F208? When I compare the measurements from two reviews, F208 seems to have better measurements almost across the board. Thanks for an insightful review on the D3 update. I suppose 800 D3 and 803 D3 would not be much different.

My biggest issue with the revels is the sound of horns. I could hear an exaggerated, plastic sounding reeds. The dealer tried to tell me that they reproduced horns incredibly realistlycally, but I've been listening to horns live since then and I've never heard that sound again, like a plastic Tupperware top buzzing. Having said this, many really like them for having a musical and broad sound stage.

The 803D3 has a smaller diameter midrange cone and a smaller "head unit" than the 802D3 and 800D3. This would likely make any extrapolation about performance from the 802D3 to the 803D3 unreliable. I would love to see the measurements of the 803D3.

I actually listened to a demo and found them very revealing and highly resolved (the treble being more delicate than my new Sopra 3s) but also way too much forward, as if the sound was slapping my face. It may have been the room or the Devialet 200 that may have had such an effect and so, while some people may like that, I have to say that I did not have much difficulty in not choosing them.

These are patently butt ugly. I wouldn't have them in my home regardless of what they cost. But, this seems to be the trend in speakers these days. Horrible, ugly looking abominations. Maybe if you threw a bag over them - I don't know.

Speakers look fantastic, I am amazed by people who comment saying they are ugly. After all you listen to them not critique them like a painting on the wall and the shape is a function of the audio design.

I have had mine about three weeks now, and loving every second of them.

I have listened to a few speakers costing far less and far more, and nothing comes close to the presence, realism and delivery of these speakers. I am also taking delivery of a pair of Quad ESL 2812 speakers soon, so that will be an interesting comparison too.

Why is no one mentioning that the price on these increased from $15,000 to $22,000.
The 803s are $17,000 - double or more than double the 803 D2.
I guess if we want a pair we are going to have to pay for all that R&D!

As a previous owner of B&W speakers I was looking forward to the release of the D3's and hopeful that I would like them better than the previous generation which I always found a tad on the bright side and not as deep reaching as some others had found. When I got a chance to listen to them the dealer still had a set of the D2's we could compare them to and for whatever reason I found the D2's far better. Not even close. Much richer sound to my ear. The D3's sounded thin and less involving than the D2's did and even less bass output than the D2's with the setup we were using which were MC601's and the C2500 preamp. Maybe the speakers weren't broken in yet but was surprised to read the review after what I heard ... The dealer kind of agreed too. I'll go have another listen after the speakers have had more time to break in. Enjoy all the perspectives! Thanks!

Received my 800 D3s end of August. It's the last word in loudspeakers period. I have listened to all sorts of speakers all the way up into 6 figures. Never heard anything like 'em. The soundstage is breathtakingly spectacular and they are nowhere near broken in yet.

So far, having listened to the 800s for about 75 hours, I have not experienced ANY fatigue whatsoever. In fact, every minute I listen to them, it reaffirms my decision to invest in these.

When you invest 30K on a pair of speakers, you want THE BEST SOUND money can buy. This was not a money no object decision. I listened to everything and I mean EVERYTHING. The only other speaker I would consider in the same conversation as the 800s would be the Joseph Audio Pearls.

To those on here commenting on the appearance of these speakers, you don't spend this kind of money on a speaker because of how they look.

When you pay 30.000 dollar for such an ugly speaker you have the right to get a much better looking speaker than this. If I would run B&W, I would never have accepted this design. I would fire the designers directly and look for better people.

I have owned 802 diamonds in the past and felt that they may have caused listening fatigue but to be fair it could also be the volume level that I kept cranking them up too. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the new D3 as it pertains to listener fatigue.

I have auditioned the 800 D3 and am very impressed but am concerned about fatigue.

I owned the 800S in the past. We auditioned also the 800D3. I stopped with B&W in 2007. I wanted to buy the 800D1. I had the hope that they were able to create better crossovers. The stage depth was still 1 metre. With the 800D3 they are still at the same level of stage depth compared to the 800D1. Since there is no one telling that 1 metre of stage depth is in fact 'hifi' stereo. You can say anything and give it the word 'highend'. There are many other brands and products who also use the word 'highend' and they are all 2-dimensional products. Audio needs better parameters where they tell people the truth about the 'real' quality instead of 'paid' articles. At the end this will not create a growing market. Only a higher quality for consumers can change it.

I would like to see that audio needs to adapt. Because the word 'highend' is based on nothing. Everyone is using the word and falsh in my perspective. I owned the best B&W loudspeakers in the past. Based on facts they are 'hifi' loudspeakers and not 'highend' loudspeakers. This is based on the fact that the stage even with the best 3-dimensional amps is still about 1 metre. This you can see as a 'hifi' stereo parameter. When I read the articles about the B&W loudspeakers it is very easy to read that many artricles are based on lies. Audio needs to change to a more open and honest world for consumers. Instead of paid articles by manufacturers. Because audio is a decreasing market. When you want to do something about it, you need to create a higher level of sound quality and emotion. And yess B&W needs new designers. And they need people who are able to create superior crossovers. When you are not able to create loudspeakers who can create a 3-dimensional stage you sell 'hifi' stereo loudspeakers. These are the facts. Stop the bullshit and give consumers honest and 'real' information based on facts and better parameters.

There is something wrong about the 800 series. The people who created them thought we will use other materials so we will have less distortion. But....they forgot the most important thing. And that is emotion. The most important part for creating emotion is diversity in sound. You miss the layers you need for the emotion in the music with these speakers. For example; a cello or violin only creates the emotion in sound by the distortion/colouration of the cabinet of the cello/violin. Listen to acoustic music with the 800 series and sometimes the energy is stuck in the cabinet inside of the loudspeaker. The other thing is; the individual focus of instruments and voices has become less sharp/intimate. Many of the demos we auditoned they used a lot of tow-in. This is done for a reason.

Seriously though, I've heard the 802D3 and 800D3 Diamonds and find it difficult to fault either.

As an owner of 800 D2's I'm of the view that the new models are cleaner in the low mids and bass, with improved transparency, and imaging is definitely 3 dimensional within a vast but not exaggerated soundstage.

Fwiw, I prefer the 800D3's to Vivid G2's and Revel Salon 2's, which says lots because they are are two of my favourite speakers. Of course YMMV.

To anyone who has listen to this speaker, could you share your thought and experience if this new generation 802D3 has improved and as good as or better sounding than some of speakers that more expensive, according to your ears ofcourse?

When I bought the 802 d2 in glossy black four years ago, it was my wife who turned the balance towards the B&W against competitors as KEF Blade, Dali Epicon or Dynaudio. She loved the extraordinary design of the 802 from first sight. They are not just loudspeakers, they are sculptures or design objects. And I myself loved every minute listening to them the last four years. When I decided to upgrade to the new 802 d3 after a casual listening session in a studio more than a few miles away, I did not even ask my wife again before I made the deal, because I was sure, she would love the new 802 d3 too! Although some 20 kg heavier they look really slim and much more elegant (now in white and grey). I don´t know any loedspeaker more beautiful than the new 802 (maybe except the 800 d3). It´s very easy: pepole who did not like the look of the old 802 d2 will not like the 802 d3 too. And vice versa.

Oh and the sound of the new 802 d3? After only one hour of listening to the new 802 d3 I did not even have to think about buying them. The decision was as clear as daylight. "This an impressively better loudspeaker in every way" was the conclusion of Kalman Rubinson. There is nothing to add to. And since my new 802 d3 arrived about 10 days ago, I´m listening to them every day and every CD with much more fun than ever. And I really liked the old ones .... Any questions left?

Agree that they don't look quite as stately as previous 802's.
I have an old pair of Nautilus 802's in dark cherry, and they still please me.
I'd love to audition these new 802d3's, but it would be like having two fire hydrants standing in the living room.
If they were to sound that much better, then I could learn to live with them.